quirkafleeg

7 ms·

1.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
And as per usual, downvoter/s (assuming they are genuine downvotes) are totally incapable of addressing any of the points made. Just more mindless dislikes.
2.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Isn't it curious that folks like kim dotcom who do not hold hospitals or anyone to ransom earn global notoriety, are raided by swat teams and face the full face of the law while those that hold hospitals to ransom can operate with
3.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Comments on HN do nothing for the victim What was the point of the original comment then, in your opinion? Just to upset people here? > and it's self-righteous posturing to pretend they do. This is nothing more than your opinio
4.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
You may be downvoted to oblivion for asking how it gets on the front page (some people think it is of interest is the usual answer, IIRC), but honestly, however this ended up here, I am struggling to work out the point of it is. It's
5.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
Indeed. Rather than worrying about hurting the feelings of someone sharing a "difficult situation" (the horrible exploitation and abuse of someone else , that they admit themselves they "feel complicit" in), perhaps som
6.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
This is bizarre. Informative, factual posts that are not rude or insulting are "off topic" now? It wasn't a grammar Nazi post or about a typo, advice/advise is a common and easily corrected error that should be correct
7.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. He wasn't calling the OP a sinner, or even questioning his posting on HN, he was telling him to do something to stop the abuse of his sister.
8.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
(Hate doing this, but as it's not a typo but a common mistake that may spread) The noun is advice . Advise is a verb. (AFAIK this isn't a British/American difference.)
9.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Just for the record: you're defending an imperial colony in the 21st century It's almost as if you didn't post this (in the 21st century) as an argument for an Argentine take over of the Falklands: "Again: Spain ass
10.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
This is going to go absolutely nowhere other than me repeating the same hard facts and you refusing to hear and accept them, but I'll just address this: > The "line drawn by Argentina" is the territory accepted by the UN.
11.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
"Evidence" of what? A line drawn by Argentina around territory they want to take over? I'm going to assume you're kidding. a) anyone can claim any territory they like; that doesn't automatically make the claim legit
12.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> 1825, Great Britain admitted Argentina's independence from Spain, but didn't claim the islands. They claimed the Falkland Islands before Argentina even existed as an independent country, as I said in my post. They didn't
13.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
I think I've whined about downvotes (specific ones and in general terms) in the distant past (it gets you nowhere, and is boring) and I think they often cause the kind of negativity this site otherwise attempts to avoid, but in this
14.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
I don't believe the other poster was decent or civil in the way he posted, but purely with regard to what I wrote, I agree, I made mistakes in the way I replied and apologize.
15.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> since they believe that this has huge ramifications for their child's life as a Jew, and if you read the Bible you can definitely see why Is the argument here that if someone happens to believe in a particular practice (that impac
16.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> How about returning the islands they stole, instead? Obvious troll is obvious but for the sake of facts: a) The Islands were uninhabited when the British settled there. b) Argentina didn't even exist as an independent country when
17.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
He didn't say that what happened to other people and not him long before he was even born was worse than what happened during the Blitz, he said British people "never really got to experience the horrors" of WWII, which is si
18.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Yeah, we overhere on the Continent (especially here in the East) got it a lot worst than the British. Yeah, after all your parents had to endure the horror of no central heating occasionally , an unimaginable atrocity beyond comprehen
19.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
It's easy to imagine how "Jews run Hollywood" is used (well we don't have to imagine; we know, and examples are probably not hard to find). OTOH, unless we're saying Jews in Hollywood, or George Soros, get a free pa
20.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
The life changing 1970s referendum to remain didn't require more than 50%+1 so I don't see how it's right that Brexiting should have. Edit to clarify this is about the first referendum to remain, not join in the first place.
21.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> If you actually _read_ the article instead of looking for buzzwords and rushing to post a comment (first!), I didn't see his now edited comments so can't comment on what he wrote, but since I did see your posts, why are you t
22.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
Thanks for the reply, the examples (I was only considering more general/mainstream porn) and the apt use of a throwaway for a post like that in a thread on online privacy. :)
23.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> the kind of porn you watch doesn't imply what you are attracted to How does it not imply what you're attracted to?
24.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Sure, communism itself might not be about reducing democracy, but I guess it would be very hard to find an example where it didn't. Replacing "communism" with "government" may be just as accurate.
25.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
Since you're asking me what's in it, I assume you haven't read it. Why not do that now; it's not hard to find online. After that, please read some basic WWII history before stringing this thread out any longer, if you&#x
26.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
Because being one of numerous factors is not the same as being the only factor, or even necessarily the deciding factor.
27.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> Fanatical resistance by the military, both due to their own racist ideals and out of the fear for self-preservation drew the war and the surrender out longer than it needed to be. That doesn't seem to be what you were originally a
28.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
I'm not sure what you're having trouble understanding here: Because, as I've said, at least twice, they were already considering surrender even before the atomic bombs were dropped.
29.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
> the Allies were hardly angels in comparison, or lacking in their own expansionist ideals Well quite. How was Japan able to attack "the USA" (itself established by over-the-top brutality and expansionism) in the first place? B
30.
by quirkafleeg 9y ago
Whatever may have eventually been negotiated, and perhaps nothing would ever have been agreed, it disproves the myth (used to justify the atom bombs) that only being nuked forced them to consider surrender.

More ›